ERA seems a very safe investment IMO.
2007 revenue $350 profit after tax around $70 mil
which means when it gets $25 it makes a small profit it only makes $5 of the sell price as profit - now looking forward when its selling at $75
costs should to the same now $1 billion in revenues and small costs.
Whos to say it may get more than $75
Add in Jabiliku at some stage (even if it is 10 years from now) and there is lots of upside.
Its only a shame we don't know when the old contracts roll-over ?
Anyone can shed light on this.
ERA says it can not divulge this for commercial reasons.
I don't quite get that & think the market should know this for the transparency benefit is important - and I don't see ERA getting lower prices for future sales if this info is revealed
Cheers,
Peteai
Not sure about whether ERA is necessarily a safe investment (although I guess that depends on what you consider to be safe)..... This stock has been extremely volatile and is unlikely to be taken over due to Rio's ownership, therefore doesn't attract a possible takeover premium.
Without knowing their long term contracts in place, it's a bit difficult to gauge. However, just doing a quick valuation method (sustainable cash flow with 75% increase year one, 55% y2, 40% y3, 15% y4 and 12% in perpetuity, 12.5% discount rate, capex at 1.2 * D&A), fair value comes up at about $18 a share, so I would say it is between appropriately priced to a bit expensive....
Not exactly a yield stock either, so for me on a risk reward basis it doesn't seem that attractive.....
T/A wise, long term (5 year chart) shows a healthy uptrend in place, although it looks like it is in a consolidation phase ATM. Short term, looks like heading lower after a break through 20.50 support, with next support at 17.50 - 18.
Cheers
Thanks for the analysis Reece it's made me think I should brush up on a some Excel.
However I think it understates the upside in ERAs profit growth. Once ERA gets $75 per pound, ERAs profit should be $700mil or more. That is a 1000% increase in profit. Some are saying that the old contracts will largely end in the next couple of years but who knows. If you could adjust the spread sheet to take as variables
A: the years the legacy contracts run and
B: the end prices
It would be a interesting model for ERAs value.
Also Kelpie you may consider yourself a newbie, but I welcome your opinion - let me know if I'm talking rubbish
Cheers,
Peteai
Hi Petai
Yes, I agree it was on the conservative side of the equation....
But there are a couple of reason's why I don't think that the NPAT of 700 mil will be seen any time soon:
1. The royalties they pay would be tied to the revenue received - don't know what basis of the royalty is, but it's pretty clear it moves with the revenue.
2. Long term U price - it's had quite a rise in the last couple of years. I understand the economics concerned, but what would happen if the price of U would fall?
As previously said, as they don't disclose the long term contracts, it's impossible to model it predictably. If you wanted to, you could model the flows on the U price, it wouldn't be that difficult. However, I think what I previously attached is a conservative view of what the outcome could be.
Cheers
You could be more scientific, but I think what I supplied gives you the "back of the envelope" calculation.
I have been considering how ERAs long term contracts should be treated in valuing the company. The sales made last year are what affects the last profit reported. But the contracts being made today (largely around the U long term price ?_- and these contracts are more than projections they are effectively guaranteed cash flows. This info would be extremely useful in valuing the company - the problem ,of course, is that these contracts are kept secret.
ERA says they are kept secret for commercial reasons.
I'm not sure how much ERA loses by making this info public but it strikes me as being totally against the princiiple of transparency.
Does anyone have opinions on this ?
Cheers
Peteai
comsec
......2007 2008 2009 2010
EPS 41.7 57.0 93.5 172.1
DPS 20.0 28.6 70.3 112.7
and westpac
.................Curr 2008 2009
EPS (c) ......41.7 57.0 93.5
PE Ratio (x) 47.3 34.6 21.1
DPS (c) ......20.0 28.6 70.3
Div Yield (%) 1.0 1.5 3.6
so what are they working from??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?